I will always disagree with compromise. I would also suggest that compromise should not be loosely defined. What I mean by that is that state CCW laws got us what we wanted, perhaps not all we wanted, but the proponents did not compromise...it was the politicians. The politicians who supported CCW did so because the people demanded it and then we got what the politicians settled for. So, in essence, not getting what you want does not define an action or group of people as those who did compromise...the foundation did not or may not have and the politician, or person of action, did compromise. Also, weak CCW laws are being strengthened across the board because compromise is bitter and must be corrected.
For instance, here in Oklahoma we have a guy who cosponsored the open carry bill who is a "Republican". The reason he co-sponsored, well the dirt right up front on the douche, is that he needs one more term to get retirement and on his way to the golden land the people found out he was a cheese eating liberal. The guy has never done anything to support guns, in fact he has worked the other side to restrict gun use and ownership. Now that his actions and voting records are being scrutinized he had to do something desperate so he could hold onto that free money at the end of the rainbow. So, in saying that, people willing to compromise and work with their representative would have gotten zero...no compromise we're going to vote your ass out got action even though the slug of a public official had to do a 180 degree turn. NO COMPROMISE....people who compromise routinely (words have meaning, read them carefully) will sell you out for their own self-preservation...this is a good case in point.
The OK State Rep. has sold out his liberal "beliefs" and backers (RINO's and RINO supporters) to get "his" goodies at the end of the rainbow. Now ponder that RINO's and RINO supporters in general (I'm not say you JL) realize and accept that "compromise must be made". The great men who founded this nation worked very hard to avoid war, but when it could not be avoided their was no compromise....it was very much win or die (except as in the traiter, Benedict Arnold). We are in a political war...there can be no compromise on our part. We work the people in political office who do not support us as comrades because they have fear of losing some personal gain...if we are weak we lose effectiveness. The moral compass of selfish sellout politicians is unstable and will align with strength and power from which they gain security. A willingness to compromise is on the surface weakness by definition. I do not compromise what I say or believe....do not read that as I will spout the hard line to all people all the time...it means I do not compromise and if I engage people I engage them at the level of understanding that they possess. Ted Nugent was with brothers and sisters who possessed a high level of understanding of what the fight is, what the fight means and, more importantly, what losing this fight results in both as a right and in the larger context of what our nation shall become if we fail.
No compromise does not mean that in our specific conversations with others we always "Cry havoc.." at each and every discussion and meeting. But it does mean that we do not compromise and that sometimes we do stand and refuse to be shouted down and treated like a bitch dog.
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
